Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38689283›Full record

ArticleMalaria journal2024

Field evaluation of the residual efficacy of new generation insecticides for potential use in indoor residual spray programmes in South Africa.

Rajendra Maharaj, Ishen Seocharan, Vishan Lakan, Zuziwe Nyawo, Moses Mkhabela, Yusentha Balakrishna

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Malaria journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Rajendra MaharajMalaria Research Group, South African Medical Research Council, Durban, South Africa. rmaharaj@mrc.ac.za.
Ishen SeocharanBiostatistics Research Unit, South African Medical Research Council, Durban, South Africa.
Vishan LakanMalaria Research Group, South African Medical Research Council, Durban, South Africa.
Zuziwe NyawoKwaZulu-Natal Department of Health, Malaria Control Programme, Jozini, South Africa.
Moses MkhabelaKwaZulu-Natal Department of Health, Malaria Control Programme, Jozini, South Africa.
Yusentha BalakrishnaBiostatistics Research Unit, South African Medical Research Council, Durban, South Africa.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe decreasing residual efficacy of insecticides is an important factor when making decisions on insecticide choice for national malaria control programmes. The major challenge to using chemicals for vector control is the selection for the development of insecticide resistance. Since insecticide resistance has been recorded for most of the existing insecticides used for indoor residual spraying, namely, DDT, pyrethroids, organophosphates and carbamates, and new chemicals are necessary for the continued success of indoor residual spraying. The aim of this study was to assess the residual efficacy of Actellic 300CS, SumiShield™ 50WG and Fludora®Fusion by spraying on different wall surfaces.

methodsOne hundred and sixty-eight houses with different wall surface types (mud, cement, painted cement, and tin) which represented the rural house wall surface types in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa were used to evaluate the residual efficacy of Actellic 300CS, SumiShield 50WG and Fludora®Fusion with DDT as the positive control. All houses were sprayed by experienced spray operators from the Malaria Control Programme. Efficacy of these insecticides were evaluated by contact bioassays against Anopheles arabiensis, a vector species. The residual efficacy of the insecticide formulations was evaluated against a susceptible insectary-reared population of An. arabiensis using WHO cone bioassays.

resultsEffectiveness of the three insecticides was observed up to 12 months post-spray. When assessing the achievement of 100% mortality over time, SumiShield performed significantly better than DDT on mud (OR 2.28, 95% CI 1.72-3.04) and painted cement wall types (OR 3.52, 95% CI 2.36-5.26). On cement wall types, Actellic was found to be less effective than DDT (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.37-0.82) while Fludora®Fusion was less effective on tin wall types (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.47-0.95). When compared to the combined efficacy of DDT on mud surfaces, SumiShield applied to each of the mud, cement and painted cement wall types and DDT applied to the cement wall types was found to be significantly more effective. These insecticides usually resulted in 100% mortality for up to 12 months with a delayed mortality period of 96-144 h, depending on the insecticide evaluated and the surface type sprayed.

conclusionField evaluation of these insecticides have shown that Actellic, SumiShield and Fludora®Fusion are suitable replacements for DDT. Each of these insecticides can be used for malaria vector control, requiring just one spray round. These insecticides can be used in rotation or as mosaic spraying.

Indexed as

AnophelesHousingInsecticidesMosquito ControlAnimalsBiological AssayHumansInsecticide ResistanceMalariaMosquito VectorsSouth AfricaInsecticidesActellicEfficacyFludora® FusionIndoor residual sprayingInsecticide resistanceSumiShield

Identifiers

PMID38689283
PMCPMC11059639

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.